Hi
I regularly drive hire cars for work.
Last year I had to fill in an insurance claim through my employers insurance after someone bashed down the side of one and failed to stop (happenned overnight, while it was parked outside my house)
The question of whether I should tell my insurers hadn't occurred to me until now - when I was filling in an new application. I'm just about to buy a new car in significantly higher insurance group than present.
Do I have to declare this and is it likely to affect the premium?
thanks
|
No idea whether it'll affect your premium, but yes - you should declare it.
|
|
How is the question worded? If it says "any accidents or claims in the last x years" then you could say no.
|
|
I don't quite follow that BP. There has been an accident, to a vehicle with which the OP was connected, and as the incident was a hit and run there was presumably a claim for the damage to made good on someone's insurance. On that basis I would say that there had been an accident and/or claim in the last x years.
|
I don't quite follow that BP. There has been an accident, to a vehicle with which the OP was connected, and as the incident was a hit and run there was presumably a claim for the damage to made good on someone's insurance. On that basis I would say that there had been an accident and/or claim in the last x years.
As an example, I just looked at Churchill's website.
The only relevant question it asks is: "Have you made any claims in the last 3 years?"
Given the circumstances outlined by the OP, I would answer "No" to that question. The OP filled in the claim form, but it's his employer who is making the claim.
|
|
BP - that is perfectly clear - an employer's claim but if asked about an "accident" what do you think think would be the correct answer to that question - if it was asked?
|
BP - that is perfectly clear - an employer's claim but if asked about an "accident" what do you think think would be the correct answer to that question - if it was asked?
Again, it would depend on the question, but if it said "have you been involved in an accident in the last 3 yrs"? - I would answer "No".
My view is that the employers hire car was involved in the accident, the OP wasn't. It would probably be tough to answer "No" if the OP had actually been driving the car at the time of its accident.
There answers are just IMHO - I'm not claiming that they're necessarily correct.
|
|
"Someone" will be along, but 'failure to disclose material facts' is a catch-all that could cause problems in any future claim if you're unlucky enough to have one.
|
>>'failure to disclose material facts' is a catch-all that could cause problems in any future claim
Spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts are only based on a superficial knowledge of the law! I do know that if you decide to drive to the pub, have too much to drink and sensibly decide to walk home you can be done for "Drunk in charge" because you have the keys in your pocket. On that basis, I suppose that OP's hire car, hit in a hit and run, would be an accident to the OP on the basis that the keys were in his house is he was in charge of the car. I think one should err on the side of caution and total disclosure. Some insurance companies will look for and may perhaps use any bit of small print or whatever to avoid paying out
|
>>you can be done for "Drunk in charge" because you have the keys in your pocket
Not really.
I cannot remember the exact wording, but it must be shown either that you were likely to drive the car or that you could be reasonably expected to be intending to do so, or whatever. But basically if you're walking towards your home away from your car you're safe.
|
|
I am glad to hear this! The circumstances I mentioned did happen many years ago and the man involved was in the RAF, in Germany and subject to military Law so I am happy to accept that this could no longer occur.
|
I checked with the person in my company who deals with insurance and was told that if i said 'no' to the question then I could in theory be charged with committing fraud.
I haven't been able to check the precise wording of the question, it was on one of those websites that gets quotes from lots of companies. I think it asked if I had made an insurance claim in the last 5 years - i wasn't sure whether I had made it or whether my company had made it, but either way i won't take the risk of not mentioning it!
|
|
Not really. I cannot remember the exact wording, but it must be shown either that you were likely to drive the car or that you could be reasonably expected to be intending to do so, or whatever. But basically if you're walking towards your home away from your car you're safe.
>>
this is what the law lords think:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansr...m
..... 17 Oct 2005 : Column 608 ....
Earl Attlee: It may help the noble Lord if I point out that I believe that if you are near the car with the keys in your pocket, you are deemed to be drunk in charge of the car.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for clearing up that matter. He is absolutely right. The keys do not have to be in one's pocket so far as drink driving offences are concerned. It is a question of proximity to the car and intent to use it. Therefore, in that area we have a very clear illustration of someone who may not even be immediately behind the wheel of a car but is responsible for it and can be charged with a serious breach of the law. That is why this debate is not really about driving. We do not have in law a definition of driving. The question when a driver is in charge of a vehicle has to be established as a fact before a court of law according to the evidence that is put before it at that time. We therefore cannot pretend that we have in law a concept of driving that enables us to introduce amendments of this kind. That is the difficulty.
Let me point to the other obvious problem that impacts on this?the development of new technology. I would be sustaining the argument even without this new technology. Some cars are now designed so that their engines stop when the accelerator is not pressed and they are no longer going forward. Whereas some careful, economical drivers switch off their engines at level crossings because they know that two trains are expected, which will take several minutes to pass, and think that they are contributing to reducing global warning as a result, the fact is that you can be driving a car that will take that decision for you; it switches off the engine.
Is it contended that because an engine is switched off, the driver is no longer in charge of the vehicle as far as the law is concerned? That would be the burden of these amendments. It would mean that it would not impact on the driver if the engine of his vehicle was not running. All the assertions by Members of the Committee who have stated how important it is to look at the question of mobile phones and their use while driving would have a coach and horses run through any part of our legislation in these terms, to say nothing of other aspects of potential bad driving, by the simple fact that if the driver could establish that the vehicle was stationary and the engine not actually running, he could not be caught by the law that would be in place if these amendments were accepted. We cannot go down that track, can we? ......
|
|
|
|
|
|
